Why do people get bad grades at GCSE/A level?

Teachers have opted out of their responsibilities for years. They quickly project their own value judgements and expectations onto the pupil instead of asking how to improve the grades and move the kid upwards and forwards. Most D graders acquire that tag aged about 8 or less.

: part 1

I disagree almost entirely with the point. Now, I don't think you've actually made one, but i can pretend that you have because i want to show you how stupid this discussion is.

The opening argument is not an argument. Supplemented with precisely zero pieces of evidence, only an outline of one person's personal experience with a fraction of a single country's educational system, it's more of a *****y set of queries laden with a lack of fore-thought.

Let's take a look.

Assuming I’m correctly outlining the main query in all its ignorant entirety with the phrase "Why do some people excuse themselves from getting good grades when it doesn’t really take much effort?", This can be taken apart and looked at.





Why do some people get bad grades and some not?

It is a common misconception that the trait of intelligence is inherent in every living person, and a sad truth that it is largely predetermined and sparse. I'll start with the obvious case that won't require any explanation for you to understand.

Approximately 1.5 million people in the UK have a learning disability. This includes 905,000 adults aged 18+ (530,000 men and 375,000 women) (Source: People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011). This is just a tragic genetic fact of life. Although I’m sure many of these individuals lead meaningful lives, about 2.5% of the UK's population is immediately off the list and out of the runnings because of the way they prenatally developed.

At this point you may be thinking "Hey, that's not really relevant, and those kids don't go to public schools anyway!" and you'd be right. I just wanted to paint a little intro picture of how this is going to go down for you. So for my next trick, genetic predisposition!

Researchers describe the heritability of intelligence as substantial and incontrovertible. It's now so inextricably linked with genetics through research that anyone in the scientific community (that belongs there) would probably feel uncomfortable pouting the old adage that intelligence is within everyone, is acquirable with time, or is even learned environmentally (while the latter most statement may be true to some unknown degree).

A recent and appropriately titled article "genes don’t just determine you IQ, they determine how well you do in school" does a good job of summarising that the science is clear that intelligence is predominantly an inheritable genetic trait. it goes as far as to show that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors.





(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school)

https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-006-9131-2

There are myriad articles detailing exactly this phenomenon to the detriment of the long-held paradigms on human intelligence. I've listed just a few that I’d gleaned from a quick Google search but it's further from exhaustive than my nan is from her first birthday, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE studies showing genetic contributions to the size differences in hippocampal cortical space, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, which would obviously play a huge role in how well someone does or can do at school.

So what does this all mean? For one, it means that you're an arrogant moron, but it also shows quite clearly that people are either born with it, or they’re not. The next question is, to what degree? For the answer, i turn to population wide IQ test results.

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

The average IQ, roughly generalised for a population of approximately 65 million people (the UK) is 100. Mensa's global database indicates that 1 in two people fall precisely in the category of 100 IQ. Now what does that mean?

Pretty bloody dire is what it means from an intellectual perspective.

"Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk. Studies involving some theory are possible from this range upward". As Charles Murray said, "with an IQ of 100, a demanding high school curricula takes you as far as your academic talents can reach. Need Structure, Little desire to know, and inefficient information processing."

That is the genetic fate of the greatest volume occupying the Bell curve that depicts intelligence. Everyone who differs by a standard deviation is an outlier, and half of the outliers are going to be more retarded than that.

Are you starting to see why you're viewpoints and those of many others are not only completely unfounded, but also damagingly ignorant as well?

If not, or if you want further convincing, read on. Next stop, social and environmental factors. Choo choo.









: part 2

1) For whatever reason, every 100 minutes a teenager takes their own life. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. About 20 percent of all teens experience depression before they reach adulthood. Between 10 to 15 percent suffer from symptoms at any one time. I do not think i need to explain to you that depression and anxiety shrink the hippocampus and severely affect a person’s concentration and memory. Roughly 12 million teenagers in the UK at present (2011 Census: Usual resident population by five-year age group and sex, local authorities in the United Kingdom), that's 4 million affected.



2) In 2014, 15 per cent of pupils had ever taken drugs, 10 per cent had taken drugs in the last year and 6 per cent had taken drugs in the last month. The prevalence of drug use increased with age. For example, 6 per cent of 11 year olds said they had tried drugs at least once, compared with 24 per cent of 15 year olds. Drug addictions are very common in teenagers and have a profound effect on the pupil’s ability to do well in education.



3) 70,440 children were in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2016, compared to 69,540 in 2015. This will have a profound impact on those children’s abilities to achieve in education.



4) A study of 11,000 seven-year-old children found that those with parents in professional and managerial jobs were at least eight months ahead academically than pupils from the most socially disadvantaged homes, where parents were often unemployed.



5) A recent study by students at King’s College London shows that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address. The report matches almost 1 million pupils with their individual postcode and exam scores at ages 11 and 15. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/07/social-class-parenting-study)



I could quite literally keep going all day with socio-economic factors that contribute to a student’s ability to perform because there's an infinite amount of them. If someone gets pooped on by a bird before they go into the exam hall, the panic and lasting anxiety that could potentially ensue could mean the difference between a grade. The world is a complicated place, you know.

Now OP, i don't know who you're quoting with that "opening argument", but it is a disgusting and ignorant thing to think, and it shows that whoever it was is incredibly arrogant, self-centred, and profoundly ignorant to what's going on in the real world.



You have said the thought has arisen in your own mind a few times, so i suggest that the next time it does you dismiss it, and take a long hard look at yourself.

When people say "I’m just not that clever", they're not bloody lying to you. Not everyone is like you. You are incredibly lucky to be gifted with intelligence.

And when people say "I want to have a life!" They're likely covering-up their inability to perform academically so as to prevent the bullying or the emotional abuse that they know will come from the self-righteous cognitively endowed, like yourself and your quotee.

This post took up a couple of hours that I really should have used for revision so please, heed what I’ve written here. The world is a scary place. Most people are not intelligent. Everyone has problems. My nan is pretty old. Think twice next time you accuse someone of "not trying" or "making excuses for themselves” to get out of doing work. And most importantly, MAKE THE MOST OF THE GIFT THAT YOU HAVE.



Thank you.

Ben Prince, out.

Here's a controversial thread concept that just popped into my head. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but, admittedly, the thought has arisen in my mind on a couple of occasions in the past. I hope the TSR community will be split on this.

Opening argument:

I can understand when people can't quite make the A/A* grade because of a silly mistake or two during an exam, and slip to a B/A because of it. However, what I can't understand is how people can be content with, or even proclaim they "aspire to reach" a C grade, as if that's some sort of huge achievement.

What I have found with my A levels and GCSEs is that to score an A or above requires a decent amount of effort (more so in some subjects than others), but it is not anything harder than would be expected on a regular basis during one's working life. Why, then, do a good proportion of people simply excuse themselves by claiming they're "just not that clever" and settle for mediocre grades by putting minimal amounts of effort in?

"But some people want to have a life!" I suppose this would be the immediate counter. I'm not arguing that everyone should be aiming for 95+ UMS and practicing to ace their Oxbridge interview as soon as they hit secondary school. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are capable of scoring in range of AAA-ABB at A level (one can easily lead a healthy social life with these aspirations) the willingness is simply not there, however. That is what I find so alien.

So yeah, who would agree with that? Who would disagree?

I don't know about A level, but I totally agree with you for GCSE's, most subjects at GCSE are really not that difficult, like STEM subjects, or Geography, I don't know why people don't put in effort and then complain that they get low grades.... It's really not difficult. Just a question though, why shouldn't people plan ahead for University?

I feel personally, that my teachers put a cap on what they thought I could achieve and that really did affect how well I thought I could do. They told me I was expected DDC, however I've so far achieved As and Bs in both my coursework and my practice papers. I'm not a massively negative person but I'm not full of confidence and therefore when teachers told me that was what I was capable of I accepted it.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Here's a controversial thread concept that just popped into my head. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but, admittedly, the thought has arisen in my mind on a couple of occasions in the past. I hope the TSR community will be split on this.

Opening argument:

I can understand when people can't quite make the A/A* grade because of a silly mistake or two during an exam, and slip to a B/A because of it. However, what I can't understand is how people can be content with, or even proclaim they "aspire to reach" a C grade, as if that's some sort of huge achievement.

What I have found with my A levels and GCSEs is that to score an A or above requires a decent amount of effort (more so in some subjects than others), but it is not anything harder than would be expected on a regular basis during one's working life. Why, then, do a good proportion of people simply excuse themselves by claiming they're "just not that clever" and settle for mediocre grades by putting minimal amounts of effort in?

"But some people want to have a life!" I suppose this would be the immediate counter. I'm not arguing that everyone should be aiming for 95+ UMS and practicing to ace their Oxbridge interview as soon as they hit secondary school. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are capable of scoring in range of AAA-ABB at A level (one can easily lead a healthy social life with these aspirations) the willingness is simply not there, however. That is what I find so alien.

So yeah, who would agree with that? Who would disagree?

It's possibly down to choosing the wrong subjects or subjects they don't like like choosing business if your not good at maths I know thats why my marks were not too good that and because i couldn't get higher than a C.

Hmm to be honest i understand what you mean, for me i feel that if i ever get a C or sometimes even a low B in some subjects I feel like i "failed" which i know might seem really irritating or ungrateful to some people but it is my own aspirational grade that I am hoping to achieve so if i fail to do so then i feel like i failed it..hope that makes sense. However, I have friends who are doing higher and foundation paper and i clearly feel that people doing higher..get more opprunities and are treated much better. For example, I have a friend who used moved to this country from Poland I think and she is actually pretty smart but has been placed in for foundation tiers in everything, it makes her not want to try as hard anymore because she knows the maximum she can get is a C and she needs to get the majority of the questions right..i think that is kinda unfair..or they get told in class "try to aim for a C or you have to retake" which is not exactly good motivation..and also seeing as I am like in higher sets for my classes we get the best teachers, :/ We can head of departments teaching us whereas they get the other teacher..my friend is in one of the lower sets and she always complains how she never gets any homework, the teacher doesnt chase them up and although they are doing there GCSE's there teacher is still behind the lesson scheme and they feel like they are doing worse..i mean i personally feel that you need to look after your education but teachers ans schools are means to help a lot..you know what i mean? or did i just ramble on and not make any sense??

I managed to attain mediocre GCSE results:

D - 1 (French)
C - 0
B - 5
A - 3

The reason for my bad GCSE's was simply down to the fact that I did not care whatsoever. I started sixth form with the same attitude I had in GCSE, not doing homework or any revision whatsoever. As a result of this, i was left getting C's/D's in all of my subjects. About 4/5 months ago I decided to change, for the better. I managed to get a very high A in my English and Biology coursework and a low A in chemistry coursework (still an A though ). Now I am on track to get A's in all 3 of these subjects along with a B/A in Psychology (this is getting dropped, as I think I'd rather scratch my eyes out than endure one more lesson)... So basically all it comes down to is how much you want it. I literally went from failing the whole of F321 (Chemistry), I got two U's in my mock tests. Within one week I had learnt the whole of F321 up to a solid A-Grade. At the end of the day it all boils down to how much you want it. I honestly wish I could turn back time and do my GCSE's all over again because there is literally no chance of me getting into any of the top universities anymore... . My advice to anyone who is failing their subjects is just to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwfhH8yDZQo

If that doesn't motivate you then I don't know what will.